Home › Blogs › figleaf's blog

More Evidence "Pro-Life" Is Still Just An Anti-Choice Slogan

Wed, 2008-11-12 17:02 — figleaf

Maria of Jezebel says

The March of Dimes has given the U.S. an overall “D” grade on its premature birth rate, which is currently at a rate of one in eight babies per year.

Read the quote in context here.


Image from MarchOfDimes.com.
Color Key: Blue=“B,” Yellow=“C,” Orange=“D,” Red=“F”Interesting.

For the last eight of the last eight years we’ve had a “pro-life” administration and for at least four of those years we had a “pro-life” party in the majority of both houses of Congress (and at least one house in the majority for six) and for… hard to say but most of that time we’ve had a “pro-life” majority in the judiciary.

And yet we’re down to one out of eight babies are now premature? And that’s just nation-wide. If the U.S. as a whole rates only a ‘D’ what are we to make of some of the state figures?

From Maria’s source, CBS News online we learn

In Vermont, 9 percent of babies were preemies in 2005, the latest available data. In Oregon and Connecticut, just under 10.5 percent of babies were premature.

Which isn’t that great but then check out some of the states with harsher anti-abortion most “compassionate” “pro-life” state and local governments…

Travel south, and prematurity steadily worsens: In West Virginia, 14.4 percent of babies were preemies; more than 15 percent in Kentucky and South Carolina; more than 16 percent in Alabama and Louisiana; and a high of 18.8 percent in Mississippi.

Read all about it here.

Woo-hoo, you go Mississippi! That’s sure some commitment to life!

Wed, 2008-11-12 18:59 — 2498 (not verified) #permalink

Actually, there’s probably a connection between being anti-abortion and having a higher prematurity rate; if high-risk pregnancies or pregnancies in young girls aren’t terminated, they’re more likely to be premature. (Not that this is always a great reason to abort since obviously plenty of preemies grow up fine, but I’m guessing it is a factor.)

[Excellent point, Holly, and I should have mentioned in my post that if one was actually pro-*life* one might consider that another way to reduce high-risk pregnancies, premature birth, miscarriage, stillbirth, risk of injury or death of the mother would be more generous encouragement of pre-natal care. Not to mention general support for very young mothers in general. Heck, it might even reduce the number of people who feel compelled to have abortions in the first place. So what ought to be an all-round win/win is… nowhere to be found. Which is what you’d expect when “pro-life” really means only “pay the wages of sin you dirty fucking sluts.” !$!~@$%. Thanks. —fl]

Fri, 2008-11-14 15:13 — 2498 (not verified) #permalink

Though it’s possible that anti-abortion legislation may have some impact, I suspect the greatest cause for these trends is that southern states tend to have higher poverty rates (and lower education rates), leading to poorer medical care even in women who wanted to keep their children.

[Yup. The Dakotas aren’t enthusiastic about abortion either but their women’s health assistance is more towards the middle. I’d argue, though, based on growing up exposed to southern-style conservatism, that antagonism towards the poor and uneducated has a strong “reap what you sow” component. Compounded, obviously, by various racial overtones that equate poverty and pregnancy with ethnicity. Thanks, Zula. —fl]

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.